Why do people bitch about the SCAR having a reciprocating charging

>>30509420
because they fear change, and because there's an extremely slight chance it could induce a malfunction

>>30509420
They bitch because they're too fucking stupid to use the weapon properly.

They try using a magwell grip and get their thumbs railed by the reciprocating handle.

>>30509420
>Didn't SOCOM specifically request one because they make it easier to clear stoppages?

It was specifically request that a forward assist of some kind be part of the design, the reciprocating charging handle was the response to that specification.

>Why do people bitch about the SCAR having a reciprocating charging handle?

I honestly don't see that much bitching about it, but from what I've seen the main issue seems to be that the handle is extra weight moving, which could cause rise when fired rapidly. It is also another component that is external and moving, and could potentially cause a snag.

I, personally, don't have a problem with the handle and don;t think reciprocating handles are a big issue, especially when you get them instead of the stupid placement of the AR charging handle, but some people feel different.

>>30509420
Retards get a funky grip and then cry when it raps them on the knuckles.

Personally, I love reciprocating charging handles and I'd love to have a right side one on my AR, replacing the forward assist and all. Of course, I would miss the dustcover.
Maybe those trigger ones could be revisited?

>>30509496
basically this.
It's not a problem on the G36 because handguard. It's not a problem on the Famas because handguard.
It's not a problem on any AK because you wouldn't want to obstruct the ejection port with your fingers anyway.

It's simpler and lighter than having a dedicated forward assist.

Yes it makes the thing less controlable for follow up shots. This and the lack of a buffer tube.

Yes it may cause issues in unexpected firing positions.

Yes having a reciprocating charging handle on the left side makes little sense as you create two "don't touch this" areas on the rifle : the ejection port and the charging handle.

Therefore the reversible charging handle is useless, another thing to scrap in favor of a simpler design.

>b-but muh ambidextrous controls
I'm sorry anon, they couldn't make it

>>30509496
>It was specifically request that a forward assist of some kind be part of the design, the reciprocating charging handle was the response to that specification.

That's not exactly how it went down. The SCAR went through several end user evaluation and feedback cycles over the course of its development. The design actually changed from reciprocating to non-reciprocating and then back to reciprocating after the second EUA phase based on direct input from SOF advisors. Source: Matt Jacques, FN SCAR program manager 2004-06

>the main issue seems to be that the handle is extra weight moving, which could cause rise when fired rapidly

No. Just, no. The SCAR's reciprocating parts assembly has a finely tuned weight according to its cyclic rate and it was intended to be massive. The charging handle of course is taken into account but has mostly negligible impact considering the extreme weight disparity between it and the bolt carrier.

>>30509657
>Yes it makes the thing less controlable for follow up shots.

Again this is the most unfounded claim of the entire thread. Your ammunition, muzzle device, grip, stance, skill and shooting conditions will all play much more of a factor in determining weapon stability than will a difference of .371oz moving back and forth.

>Yes having a reciprocating charging handle on the left side makes little sense

It makes perfect sense when you're right handed. The placement is in a natural position to manipulate without dismounting the weapon. It also provides the ability to clear malfunctions or lock the bolt open with only one hand, very convenient.

You many not like it that way, and thus you have the option to switch it.

>another thing to scrap in favor of a simpler design

The design literally could not be any simpler to machine the way that allows both options, so why involve more to limit yourself?

>>30510567
>That's not exactly how it went down. The SCAR went through several end user evaluation and feedback cycles over the course of its development. The design actually changed from reciprocating to non-reciprocating and then back to reciprocating after the second EUA phase based on direct input from SOF advisors. Source: Matt Jacques, FN SCAR program manager 2004-06

I remember reading that one of the requirements was a forward assist feature. I presumed, given what I was reading that it was a formal requirement, but it may have been an informal one given through SOF feedback. In any case- the end users wanted a forward assist, and that's why the handle reciprocates.

>No. Just, no. The SCAR's reciprocating parts assembly has a finely tuned weight according to its cyclic rate and it was intended to be massive. The charging handle of course is taken into account but has mostly negligible impact considering the extreme weight disparity between it and the bolt carrier.

I think you misunderstand my point of view here. I say that the extra weight could cause rise, and I am sure that it may have a small impact, but if you read the last part of my post, I agree that the impact is extremely negligible, and an overblown issue; I was giving the arguments against the handle which are most often seen.. It's a problem that exists on internet boards more than in real life.

I think the design is solid.

File: 1-29.jpg (252KB, 763x1022px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 763x1022px

>>30510615
>In any case- the end users wanted a forward assist, and that's why the handle reciprocates

But that's not why. There are other methods to incorporate a forward assist via a non-reciprocating handle. In fact the FNAC and SCAR 20-CSASS both have static charging handles with forward assist capability.

The Mk16/17 have a reciprocating handle because the overall design is simpler, lighter and more robust in addition to providing the shooter a constant status indication as to the condition of the weapon.

>I say that the extra weight could cause rise, and I am sure that it may have a small impact

But it won't, because the total mass of the reciprocating parts is specifically integral to the weapon's design. Full auto SCAR bolts even have different lightening cuts to achieve their desired cyclic rate. The point is that if FN had engineered a static non-reciprocating handle into the SCAR, they would have to compensate by removing less material from the bolt carrier and thus net reciprocating mass would remain the same = no difference in perceived muzzle rise. The only way it could be argued to have less is due to an overall increase in weapon weight from the more complicated/heavier non reciprocating design, but I doubt anyone would be in favor of arguing that.

>It's a problem that exists on internet boards more than in real life.

Agreed on that statement entirely. But this thread is the first I've ever heard that notion of muzzle rise from a reciprocating handle.

File: 4UlUAaF.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>30510857
>But that's not why. There are other methods to incorporate a forward assist via a non-reciprocating handle. In fact the FNAC and SCAR 20-CSASS both have static charging handles with forward assist capability.

But they went with this choice because it was simple *and* it fulfilled the requirement. I am really perplexed why you think we are massively disagreeing here. You seem agitated for the sake of it.

>Agreed on that statement entirely. But this thread is the first I've ever heard that notion of muzzle rise from a reciprocating handle.

This is mostly something you can view with AKs and other weapons that weren't as fine tuned to eliminate rise.

There is almost certainly *some* degree of rise with automatic or rapid semi auto from the charging handle of a SCAR, but we both agree that it is negliable.

Why argue? Be happy.

>>30510944
>I am really perplexed why you think we are massively disagreeing here

Because you keep repeating statements that have already been proven untrue. Like this for example:

>There is almost certainly *some* degree of rise with automatic or rapid semi auto from the charging handle of a SCAR

No. Just, no. There isn't. NONE.

There is no muzzle rise gained from the reciprocating charging handle that wouldn't be present in its absence. Pls stahp.

>>30509420
It catches onto clothing and adds extra wear to the charging handle.

>>30510857
What is this picture showing exactly?

>>30512641

The different lightening cuts between full-auto and semi-only SCAR bolt carriers. The Mk17 is cut longer but shallower than the 17S and is heavier as a result. The increased mass helps to slow the cyclic rate in automatic fire.